1. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    09 Jun '11 13:041 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The first element makes sense. The second doesn't.
    Maybe with respect to short-term spending, but not with respect to paying off the deficit.
  2. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    09 Jun '11 13:231 edit
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/federal_spending_cuts/?hpt=po_bn1

    Some top deficit hawks from the left and right are flashing a warning sign: Making
    too many federal spending cuts now will hurt the economy.

    These are the same folks, mind you, who have been preaching the perils of debt
    long before the cut-now-or-else Tea Party came to town.

    And their message comes at a time when Republicans are pushing for trillions in
    federal spending cuts -- with as much in the near-term as possible -- in exchange
    for raising the country's debt ceiling.
  3. Standard memberspruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    Joined
    23 Oct '04
    Moves
    4402
    09 Jun '11 18:23
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Since we're talking long-term solutions, why not also consider a balanced budget
    amendment? Of course, there could be provisions for exceptions under certain
    circumstances, but I don't think the idea itself is radical.
    Absolutely. Every state has one. Why not the country?
  4. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    09 Jun '11 18:28
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Absolutely. Every state has one. Why not the country?
    Yes, and it's working out great for the States .........................
  5. Standard memberspruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    Joined
    23 Oct '04
    Moves
    4402
    09 Jun '11 18:31
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Maybe with respect to short-term spending, but not with respect to paying off the deficit.
    Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.

    Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
  6. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    09 Jun '11 18:40
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.

    Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
    Taxes are too low. And the concept that unearned income and inheritances should be taxed at lower rates (or not at all) than work is an abomination.
  7. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    09 Jun '11 18:41
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.

    Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
    Will Disco come back!?

    Saturday Night Fever trailer
    YouTube
  8. Standard memberspruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    Joined
    23 Oct '04
    Moves
    4402
    09 Jun '11 18:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Taxes are too low. And the concept that unearned income and inheritances should be taxed at lower rates (or not at all) than work is an abomination.
    20% is a reasonable tax rate. 15% is better. Unearned income is like any income and should be taxed accordingly.
  9. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    09 Jun '11 18:53
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    20% is a reasonable tax rate. 15% is better. Unearned income is like any income and should be taxed accordingly.
    Flat rates ignore Diminishing Marginal Utility and are thus economically dubious.

    I thought you were opposed to a tax on dividend income.
  10. Standard memberspruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    Joined
    23 Oct '04
    Moves
    4402
    09 Jun '11 19:07
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Flat rates ignore Diminishing Marginal Utility and are thus economically dubious.

    I thought you were opposed to a tax on dividend income.
    Re: dividends -- yes. Dividends should be treated more like salaries. Salaries are deducted as an expense before corporate tax is figured.

    If we forced companies to pay salaries with after tax money (and still taxed the employees who received that salary) that would be double-taxation. That's what we do with dividends.

    Doing this would encourage dividend payments and could eventually lead to a system where people rely on dividends in retirement instead of purchasing a government annuity (e.g. social security). We should definitely encourage that.
  11. Standard memberspruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    Joined
    23 Oct '04
    Moves
    4402
    09 Jun '11 19:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Flat rates ignore Diminishing Marginal Utility and are thus economically dubious.

    I thought you were opposed to a tax on dividend income.
    The nearly flat rate under Reagan worked well. Asian countries are now trying it. I guess we will see.
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Jun '11 19:14
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The nearly flat rate under Reagan worked well. Asian countries are now trying it. I guess we will see.
    Yeah, it worked wonders.
  13. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    09 Jun '11 19:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.

    Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]...
    If up, great.

    If not, try again.

    Do this twice a month until you pass something.
    SH, you've been pretty level headed over the years at rhp.

    But to answer your question all you need to do is look at how other countries around the world handle their fiscal crisis and the answer as to "WHY" these things don't get fixed should be obvious. The answer is.....

    ...because they don't have to be fixed. Nothing will happen RIGHT NOW if nothing get fixed. The only time things will get fixed is when they have to. And that time, while coming soon, isn't right now.

    If you want to know how the US will handle their fiscal problems, look to greece, ireland, spain, italy, and you'll see. Just wait until the debt holders decide they don't want to buy your debt anymore and then you make changes. It's easier to make changes when you are being FORCED than to do them volunarily. Politicians need an excuse to raise taxes and cut programs and right now, and i mean right this minute, you don't have that excuse.

    The day will come and when it does the change will be severe but until that day comes, you'll just keep seeing all the grubby politicians vying for power, paychecks and campaign contributions.....
  14. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    09 Jun '11 20:00
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Re: dividends -- yes. Dividends should be treated more like salaries. Salaries are deducted as an expense before corporate tax is figured.

    If we forced companies to pay salaries with after tax money (and still taxed the employees who received that salary) that would be double-taxation. That's what we do with dividends.

    Doing this would encourage d ...[text shortened]... of purchasing a government annuity (e.g. social security). We should definitely encourage that.
    The "double taxation" argument has been debunked on this forum many times. Corporations and stock holders are completely different entities and taxation should reflect that; dividends are not an "expense" they are a distribution of the companies' earnings to its owners. Economically, we should be encouraging corporations to retain and reinvest earnings to grow the economy. So your argument doubly fails.
  15. Standard memberspruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    Joined
    23 Oct '04
    Moves
    4402
    09 Jun '11 21:16
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The "double taxation" argument has been debunked on this forum many times. Corporations and stock holders are completely different entities and taxation should reflect that; dividends are not an "expense" they are a distribution of the companies' earnings to its owners. Economically, we should be encouraging corporations to retain and reinvest earnings to grow the economy. So your argument doubly fails.
    Absolutely not. Double taxation of dividends means companies must try to deliver returns to their investors through higher stock prices instead of profit-sharing. It is a case of government regulation interfering in the normal working of the economy again.

    It makes stocks an unsuitable vehicle for retirement investment -- when in fact there would be many benefits if they were.

    This isn't that radical. S corporations pass all of their profit through to owners without tax. I'm saying a C corporation should be able to treat its owners the same way on a dividend distribution. What the corporation keeps is taxed at the corporate rate.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree